STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned A. C. Meakins to position of Infreight Teller at Freight Office South Water Street, Chicago, on position advertised on vacancy bulletin No. 2899 dated April 27, 1946, and declined to consider the application of D. J. O'Leary, the senior employe bidding on this vacancy.
(2) That D. J. O'Leary be assigned to position of Infreight Teller covered by Bulletin No. 2899 and compensated for all monetary loss suffered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On April 27, 1946, position of Infreight Teller, rate $8.92 per day was advertised on vacancy bulletin No. 2899 to employes in freight office at South Water Street, Chicago, Illinois.
The position was awarded to A. C. Meakins with seniority date of Feb. 16, 1945. The application of D. J. O'Leary with seniority date of June 20, 1944 was not given proper consideration.
This position of Infreight Teller works in the Inbound Freight House in a space next to the Asst. General Foreman's Office. There are two infreight tellers working at this location. Eighty-five percent of their work is stamping bills for the Cartage Companies and for the draymen who come to their respective windows to pick up city freight. The balance of the work, or about fifteen percent, pertains to receiving money at windows, issuing storage bills and picking up "shippers order notify" bills of lading.
A small amount of cash ranging from $20.00 to $40.00 per day is collected by these infreight tellers on miscellaneous freight from certain draymen. This is turned over to Cashier's Office in the main freight office building located across the street.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: There is in evidence between the parties an agreement bearing effective date of June 23, 1922 and revised September 1, 1927, which contains the following rules:
The Carrier maintains it has shown by conclusive evidence that it has adhered strictly to the provisions of the promotion rule, Rule 6, by promoting the senior applicant possessing sufficient fitness and ability for the disputed position.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant bid on position of Infreight Teller at Freight Office, South Water Street, Chicago, and was rejected on the ground that fitness and ability was insufficient. The position was awarded to a junior employe. Employes file claim as indicated.
There is no doubt of the qualifications of the junior employe who was finally awarded the position and there is no doubt but that the qualifications of said junior employe was superior to that of the Claimant. That, however, is not the test and hence is immaterial in a consideration of this claim.
This Board has frequently had occasion to consider the question of selection of employes for promotion on the basis of promotion rules similar to that found in the instant Agreement and such Awards as have been issued in connection therewith are fairly uniform in holding that the determination of fitness and ability in the first instance is a matter for the Carrier's discretion and when fitness and ability of an employe is found wanting, the employe has the burden of overcoming the Carrier's decision by proof.
Here we cannot say that such proof has been supplied nor can we say that there was not reasonable ground for Carrier's decision in the matter. The record reveals that the performance of the duties of the position of Infreight Teller requires skill in clerical work and considerable attention to varying details. Claimant at the time of the bulletining of the position had about twenty-two months of service with the Carrier, about nine of which were as a messenger and the remainder in minor clerical work, mostly filing. True, he filled in for some twenty-three days at different times on higherrated position when regular incumbents were of because of sickness, however, 4466-10 484
it is reasonable to conclude that Carrier's statement that he did not fully perform all of the work of such positions is true. As a matter of fact, that is not denied by the Employes. Claimant's application for employment reveals no clerical experience in outside employment so that the only experience record which he had in clerical work was that above indicated. Now, experience alone is not the only basis upon which an employe's right to advancement should be determined, but it does afford some means of forecasting ability to perform higher-rated work, and here there is nothing further in the record of the Claimant which the Carrier could have taken into account in judging the sufficiency of Claimant's fitness and ability to fill the position. Accordingly, we believe that there was a reasonable basis for Carrier's decision and hence we do not feel justified in interfering with its judgment in the matter.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and